Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

On 08 Aug 1998, Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
>
> On 8/7/98, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > They will, but why should they have to? The point is that the
> > > consumer is better off if the good can be made available for
> > > free, or nearly free -- and it can be, once it is created.
> > > Consequently, consumers of the good should only have to pay for
> > > it to the extent necessary to induce the creator to create it
> > > in the first place. 100 or more years of monopoly rents are
> > > probably not necessary to induce creation -- something less than
> > > that will probably suffice.
> >
> > Then you must be against all private enterprise, with all the
> > property rights that encourage investing and making profits
> > (or losing your shirt).
>
> Nothing posted in this thread supports that assertion, particlularly
> the loaded language in the first line. Quite the contrary, I have
> consistently argued in favor of property rights that encourage
> investment and making profits. I have argued *against* property
> rights that allow supracompetitive monopoly rents at the expense of
> the public.
>
> > > As far as I know, nothing. My argument, reproduced above, is that
> > > any monopoly rent beyond "recouping their investment" is both
> > > inefficient and socially objectionable.
> >
> > Since when is "breaking even" an incentive to invest?
>
> First, plese note that the language of "breaking even" is yours,
> not mine, and you appear to be using it in a colloquial sense that
> inaccurate for this discussion. But, to the extent that you may be
> referring to the concept of pricing at marginal cost, it has been an
> incentive since the concept of "investment" was developed -- probably
> c. 4000 BCE, or even before.

The plain English "breaking even" to describe "beyond recouping their investment" or "pricing at marginal cost" is not inaccurate. The opportunity to reap minimal profits or major losses is no invitation to invest. Investors risk losses only for the chance at major profits. Why should I kid around with esoterica when I want to communicate?

> > > > What is it that singles out "content-oriented" publishers for
> > > > criticism while "conduit-oriented" information technology firms
> > > > are encouraged to make all the profits they can?
> > >
> > > I'm afraid that I don't follow this question at all, particularly
> > > the loaded language in the last line. Can you explain yourself
> > > further?

Xerox Corporation and others that enable unauthorized, illegal copying boast _profits_ far beyond the _gross_sales_ of any publisher. David Packard (of Hewlett-Packard) even sits as co-chair of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology and enjoys a general waiver of normal conflict-of-interest restrictions. No publisher sits in such a powerful insider position as far as I know.

> > I wonder why you don't complain about the profits of firms like
> > Intel, H-P, Xerox, and IBM?
>
> Perhaps because this is a list about copyright, not about antitrust
> or about hardware vending?
>
> > Their profits are larger than any publishing company by several
> > orders of magnitude -- far beyond "recoupting their investment."
>
> First, as I noted to a previous post in this thread, assuming
> that your representation is accurate, you are probably confusing
> accounting profits with economic profits. Second, if the firms in
> question are doing more than "recouping their investment" then they
> will either 1) shortly be undercut by a competitor, until either they
> lower thier price to the marginal cost of production or they go out
> of business, or 2) they have an unwarranted degree of market power
> due to some competitive failure, in which case they are subject to
> regulation under antitrust law to correct the problem.

You call patent rights an "unwarrented degree of market power due to some competitive failure?" If you are against copyrights, I guess you might as well be against patents for the same reasons.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com Received on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 14:52:58 GMT